Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

But there weren't so many people 'in the past' who would leave records of it's effect.
paleo_CO2_2018_1500.gif

Where exactly did you get the graph? In any case, here's another graph going over much older periods:

image277.gif

It's taken from an article at WUWT. It's based on work by Scotese (temperature) and Berner (CO2) -- see the article for references if you wish. Read the article to see how Royer and Berner (temperature) and Berner (CO2) have "adjusted" the data to produce this:

phanerozoic_co2_temp.png

-- note how even that agrees that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past. But read the article if you want to find out how other work by Royer and Berner gives this graph:

moberg_macfarlingmeure_06.png
Here's WUWT's comment:
One slight problem…
This fairly decent correlation yields an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), inclusive of all feedback, of only 1.28 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 over the past ~540 million years. This would mean that the transient climate response (TCR), the one that actually affects us, is only about 0.85 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, very much inline with the low end of recent low sensitivities calculated from satellite-era instrumental observations.

If they're right in the last graph, then it shows low temperature sensitivity to CO2. Can't have it both ways: can't claim on the one hand that CO2 is the big bugaboo and on the other that temperature sensitivity to CO2 is low.

I don't know how far any of the graphs represent reality. I just present this to indicate that there's inconsistency in claims being made by AGW proponents, coupled with "adjustments" they continually make to data interpretation based on the assumption of the AGW paradigm in the first place. In this instance, it looks like they've been hoist by their own petard.
 
Last edited:
LoneShaman,

Yes, it seems significant, but again, it's consistent with what I wrote. I read the actual study, skipping the "Methods" section which was too technical to bother with. The authors say in there what they were quoted as saying in the article to which you linked: that though the models have errors in them, which, as you point out, sound impressive, those errors don't affect the accuracy of their predictions.

Here's a brief quote from the study's conclusion which justifies this, after which we can hopefully put this issue to rest (emphasis mine):

Yes I read that the first time. the actual quote is "such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection ". This is purposefully vague with no supporting reason or justification given. This is what is called plausible deniability. Used in order to pacify in the hostile world of climate zealotry. Those errors are significant, that comment is clearly one of the few non scientific ones, it is quite clearly there for another reason.

So, you're aware that that projection is for a doubling of CO2 since pre-Industrial times, right? i.e., that projection is for a 100% increase in C02, whereas at present we are only at about a 48% increase
Yes I do understand that. We can look at the very first report to see if anything has held up, it hasn't. What we see in current times is hindcasting, tweaking after the fact.
clip_image0025.jpg


. We are still on target to meet that projection, dude, assuming CO2 keeps on increasing... there's been no invalidation.

So we are waiting to see what happens? Like I said we can look at the earliest report. See above, it failed.

Dude, there is mountains of invalidation, in fact even the IPCC has stated that the models have never been validated! See the 2013 IPCC Physical Science Basis Report.

No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.

Without a successful validation procedure, no model should be considered to be capable of providing a plausible prediction of future behaviour of the climate.

There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are recognized and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit almost any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.
'
· The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.

These comments are from Vincent Gray, M.A., Ph.D
As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have submitted thousands of comments to all of the Reports. My comments on the Fourth IPCC Report, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC (2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08...atory-the-invaluable-work-of-dr-vincent-gray/

Want to see mountains of invalidation, well that is actually a misnomer as there has never been any validation. But anyway enjoy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/page/6/?s=model+projections

You talk to them, huh?... OK, next time you talk to them, could you please tell them to quit harassing me?

I didn't say they listen. But I'll give it a shot.

Psychoactive drugs, psychedelics, hallucinogens, etc, I assume you mean (and I include marijuana in that mix). Those drugs (have) mess(ed) me up badly (hence my request to you above). I don't (can't) consume them anymore.

That's bad news, can you elaborate on the negative conditions? Perhaps I can help. Much of these things are derived from spiritual wounds. These are the conduits for communion with Gaia.
 
More -


Sources:
Termites responsible for 2% of atmospheric co2 and 4% methane
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ic_Trace_Gases

co2 alone does not explain temperature rise of PETM
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo578
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4948332/...

Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908...

A case for a comet impact trigger for the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum and carbon isotope excursion
https://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ion-141807385/...

PETM and EECO good for mammals and plants
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/32/13399...

Medieval warming period data
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...al-warm-period...

Medieval warming period caused by solar forcing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...40618218308322...

Medieval warming period new zealand and Australia
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...p_aus_newz.pdf...

co2 in the air over 800 000 years
https://github.com/vis4/co2-history

Plant response to low c02
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...7.2010.03441.x...

plant response to high co2
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth...

Little ice age
https://www.history.com/news/little-...g-consequences...

Cold weather kills more people than hot weather
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...114-0/fulltext...
 
Yes I read that the first time. the actual quote is "such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection ". This is purposefully vague with no supporting reason or justification given. This is what is called plausible deniability. Used in order to pacify in the hostile world of climate zealotry. Those errors are significant, that comment is clearly one of the few non scientific ones, it is quite clearly there for another reason.

You might have read that quote the first time, but you don't seem to have read the full paper. ;-)

How can I say that? Because you say that the quote has "no supporting reason or justification" and is "non scientific", whereas an entire section of the paper is devoted to justifying it! That section is "Implication of cloud cycle errors for climate projection".

Yes I do understand that. We can look at the very first report to see if anything has held up, it hasn't. What we see in current times is hindcasting, tweaking after the fact.

You should probably read the How reliable are climate models? article on Skeptical Science. Hindcasting is used to test models (how else are you going to test them?):

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.


I see your static JPEG, sir, and I raise you an animated GIF (from the above page):

ChristyChart500.gif


I didn't say they listen. But I'll give it a shot.

Do you have two-way communication? Mine is only one-way (them to me; they do not seem interested in conversation, only commentary/criticism).

That's bad news, can you elaborate on the negative conditions? Perhaps I can help. Much of these things are derived from spiritual wounds. These are the conduits for communion with Gaia.

It's probably best I do that privately, if you're open to that. If you are, please feel free to send me a PM. If not, that's perfectly fine.
 
Oh boy. How many other climate scientists who disagree with Judith Curry also don't get any media attention?

Greta, whilst still very young, has bravely stood up internationally for what she believes in, subjecting herself to attacks from those like you who just want to cut her down. Seems to me that deserves to be reported on.

What has happened to Greta appears to me to be child abuse. That is what should (IMO) be reported on.
 
Oh boy. How many other climate scientists who disagree with Judith Curry also don't get any media attention?

Not a correct comparison - Judith Curry is not just another scientist, she is one of the leading figures in the anti-CAGW circles - just like Greta Tunberg in the pro-CAGW ones. Yet, since being anti-CAGW is (relatively) fringe and being pro-CAGW is (clearly) mainstream, Curry is ignored while Greta is promoted.

And this is yet another manifestation of a very real systemic censorship.

Greta, whilst still very young, has bravely stood up internationally for what she believes in, subjecting herself to attacks from those like you who just want to cut her down. Seems to me that deserves to be reported on.

What Greta receives for her activism is 90% praise (combined with promotion, invitations and other social supportive measures), 9% criticism and 1% hateful personal attacks. With CAGW skeptics, it is the direct opposite: 90% hateful personal attacks (combined with censorship, ostrachism and other social repressive measures), 9% criticism and 1% praise.

Whose situation is worse, I wonder...

What has happened to Greta appears to me to be child abuse. That is what should (IMO) be reported on.

She is 16 years old, and still a "child"? I perceive her as a young woman, who is morally and intellectually responsible for the stances she take and actions she perform, not as an "innocent child" abused by "evil adults".
 
Not a correct comparison

Well if we're going to be really "correct" about the comparison, then we can't compare Greta with Judith, we have to compare her with a hypothetical sixteen year old who takes every Friday off school to protest in front of Parliament about the evils of wind turbines and the corruption of the IPCC...

In any case, is this really "censorship", or is it recognition that one person has the moral authority on her side and the other doesn't?
 
She is 16 years old, and still a "child"? I perceive her as a young woman, who is morally and intellectually responsible for the stances she take and actions she perform, not as an "innocent child" abused by "evil adults".

I understand your point. My comment was based on what I had learned as to her history / upbringing. It appears to me she has been brutally indoctrinated from an early age. That, to me, is abuse.
 
Do you think LS or I write as we do to protect our vast investments?
I mean any business, individual shareholder or politician who has (usually financial) interests in maintaining the use of fossil-fuels, because I think this is what the focus on carbon (tax) and the excess/imbalance of CO2 is about. To persuade people "it's all good, nothing to see here, carry on" so we can all go on as we are until it is all used up. That type of greedy, callous self-interest has led to withholding development of electric cars, research into alternative energy and mass-production of petroleum plastics with little or no regard or responsibilty for public preference or detrimental consequence. It is a form of commercial dictatorship. Also anyone who benefits from the current modern culture and gets to hang on to their 'home-comforts', while the rest of the world starves, drowns or burns. So long as we white middle-class westerners get to carry on regardless (?)

I don't know whether you or LoneShaman come into any of the above categories, but to deny CO2 is a factor, along with our not even mentioning all the other particles and junk we have allowed into the atmosphere (good point thank you Michael) is courting disaster.

I will now take some time to read/listen to as many of the links etc, including Steve Mcintyre/Anthony Watts and get back later
all the best Alice
 
Where exactly did you get the graph?
my apologies, my computer skills are very minimal and I don't know whether it is authorised to link but here is the (unabridged) page from:
logo.png

"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Author:
Rebecca Lindsey
September 19, 2019

The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2018 was 407.4 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.
<p><img data-fr-image-pasted="true" alt="graph of carbon dioxide over the past 800,000 years, showing glacials and interglacials and how the 2018 CO2 level compares" title="Carbon dioxide over the past 800,000 years" data-delta="18" data-fr-src="https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2018_620.gif" width="620" height="266"><br></p>
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on EPICA (ice core) data. The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher levels). Throughout these cycles, atmospheric carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm; in 2018, it reached 407.4 ppm (black dot). NOAA Climate.gov, based on EPICA Dome C data (Lüthi, D., et al., 2008) provided by NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.
In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.
Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.

Squeeze or stretch the graph in either direction by holding the Shift key while you click and drag. The bright red line (source data) shows monthly average carbon dioxide at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawai'i in parts per million (ppm): the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million molecules of dry air. Over the course of the year, values are higher in Northern Hemisphere winter and lower in summer. The dark red line shows the annual trend, calculated as a 12-month rolling average.
According to the State of the Climate in 2018 report from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 407.4 ± 0.1 ppm in 2018, a new record high. That is an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm from 2017, similar to the increase of 2.2 ± 0.1 ppm between 2016 and 2017.
In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the past decade, however, the growth rate has been closer to 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
Why carbon dioxide matters
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth’s land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat). Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F. But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth's energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth's average temperature.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. It absorbs less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, but it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not, which means it adds to the greenhouse effect in a unique way. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.
<p><img data-fr-image-pasted="true" alt="stacked area graph showing the relative contribution of all the gases that cause global warming" title="Greenhouse gases relative 1990 amounts" data-delta="19" data-fr-src="https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/aggi_stackedarea_1979-2018_620.jpg" width="620" height="340"><br></p>
(left vertical axis) The heating imbalance in watts per square meter relative to the year 1750 caused by all major human-produced greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons 11 and 12, and a group of 15 other minor contributors. Today's atmosphere absorbs about 3 extra watts of incoming solar energy over each square meter of Earth's surface. According to NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (right axis) the combined heating influence of all major greenhouse gases has increased by 43% relative to 1990. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from NOAA ESRL.
Another reason carbon dioxide is important in the Earth system is that it dissolves into the ocean like the fizz in a can of soda. It reacts with water molecules, producing carbonic acid and lowering the ocean's pH. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean's surface waters has dropped from 8.21 to 8.10. This drop in pH is called ocean acidification.
A drop of 0.1 may not seem like a lot, but the pH scale is logarithmic; a 1-unit drop in pH means a tenfold increase in acidity. A change of 0.1 means a roughly 30% increase in acidity. Increasing acidity interferes with the ability of marine life to extract calcium from the water to build their shells and skeletons.
<p><img data-fr-image-pasted="true" data-delta="11" data-fr-src="https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/pteropod_comparison_620.jpg" width="620" height="337" alt="" title=""><br></p>
(left) A healthy ocean snail has a transparent shell with smoothly contoured ridges. (right) A shell exposed to more acidic, corrosive waters is cloudy, ragged, and pockmarked with ‘kinks’ and weak spots. Photoscourtesy Nina Bednarsek, NOAA PMEL.
Past and future carbon dioxide
Natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more. The warm episodes (interglacials) began with a small increase in sunlight due to a tiny wobble in Earth’s axis of rotation or in the path of its orbit around the Sun.
That little bit of extra sunlight caused a little bit of warming. As the oceans warmed, they outgassed carbon dioxide—like a can of soda going flat in the heat of a summer day. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere amplified the initial warming.
Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores (and other paleoclimate evidence), we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm.
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. On May 9, 2013, the daily average carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm for the first time on record. Less than two years later, in 2015, the global amount went over 400 ppm for the first time. If global energy demand continues to grow and to be met mostly with fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide will likely exceed 900 ppm by the end of this century."

I am willing to consider that the Sun is a powerful force and has an influence on the Earth, especially if the magnetic shield that has protected her up till now is no longer adequate, but I will not in that case relinquish my belief that the heedless disregard we humans show to the consequences of our actions, such as: almost exclusive reliance on oil, coal & gas for power, the disastrous addition of lead to petrol, the reckless proliferation of plastics and installation of nuclear power as an 'alternative'. All these procedures carry drawbacks that should have prevented their ever taking place, but since they were, we now need to deal with that.
I think we know this: (taken from a Hopi proverb) You cannot pump what belongs underground all over the surface, saturate the air and unbalance the chemistry, without there being consequences.
No wonder the young are pissed off with us -it looks like the plan is to leave it to them to deal with.

To say that in the far distant past there was also/more of this much CO2, so that it's 'ok' now, is to neglect the point that complex, vulnerable primates were not necessarily around (500+million ya) especially in our numbers, to make records of whether they could tolerate it. This is what concerns people. Trees and insects, even dinosaurs may have thrived (nice wee 'the greenies should like that' comment) but not us. Your denial of this man-made factor and the presentation of a cause (it's the sun) that we can do nothing about, will lead to apathy and despair.
(Good one!?:()

You know, an important point to remember while we are seeking for truths is that in this complex and crowded world, we are bound to meet those with whom we do not agree. But this should not mean we treat them with hostility or just reject their ideas. They may have a point. It is comfortable to mix with only those who think as we do, but we don't grow unless we learn to listen and allow others to think differently.
 
She is 16 years old, and still a "child"? I perceive her as a young woman, who is morally and intellectually responsible for the stances she take and actions she perform, not as an "innocent child" abused by "evil adults".
Late adolescence is actually a 'state of transition' from child to adult. But dealing with people 4 times her age would be daunting for anyone. You may have your personality formed but you don't have the experience. Her innocence is her youth and the purity of her argument up against the objections of old men and women with corrupted minds. She has done nothing less than take on the fossil-fuel cartel.
 
What has happened to Greta appears to me to be child abuse. That is what should (IMO) be reported on.
I understand your point. My comment was based on what I had learned as to her history / upbringing. It appears to me she has been brutally indoctrinated from an early age. That, to me, is abuse.
What scare-mongering!
At first i thought you meant UN representatives abused her heartfelt demand for some attention to planetary pollution.
I have heard that she has had to 'educate' her parents in climate change, and they are regular people with an extremely bright and passionate daughter.
 
You might have read that quote the first time, but you don't seem to have read the full paper. ;-)

How can I say that? Because you say that the quote has "no supporting reason or justification" and is "non scientific", whereas an entire section of the paper is devoted to justifying it! That section is "Implication of cloud cycle errors for climate projection".

The word "seem" is not scientific. And yes I read it. A bunch of different treatments in different contexts to a bunch of different models with a bunch of possible results. Except it is recognized that the models have enormous amounts of uncertainties. By tweaking these you can get any result you want. They all assume high sensitivity for which there is no evidence for. They are no better than guesses.

That section also has the statement....

while the effects of large DCC errors over land are compensated by the effects of small bias over the ocean, this compensation disrupts the spatial patterns of the energy distribution and may influence the land–ocean–atmosphere interaction, with potentially significant impacts on the climate projections

This is just one paper showing just one of the multitudes of issues in climate modelling and what has been missing. Wait till the entirety of particle forcing gets its due.

You should probably read the How reliable are climate models? article on Skeptical Science. Hindcasting is used to test models (how else are you going to test them?):

You should read what I have already posted.

It is now a given in the climate debate that an issue or a person attacked by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates is dealing with the truth. It proves they know the truth and are deliberately deflecting from it for political objectives. Skepticalscience is a perfect example and their attempt to justify validation of the models begins with an attack on Freeman Dyson’s observation that,

“[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”

They use “reliability” instead of validation and use the term “hindcasting”, but in a different context.

“If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.”


Referring to the exact article you just posted. What a coincidence. Hell even the IPCC admit there are large amounts of uncertainties with a lack of or poor quality long term data. None have ever been validated in the true scientific sense of the word. At the very best they are inconclusive and at worst fraudulent.

I see your static JPEG, sir, and I raise you an animated GIF (from the above page):

It is weak and intentionally uses redirection. We have actual observation combined with the agreement of multiple satellite data sets The projections do not match. You do not need any treatments of models only the recent history. It's a fact.


Enough with the cherry picking eh? It is evident that you have convinced yourself and nothing will shake that unless there is a large consensus, well you did admit that to your credit.
 
Climate Alarmists’ Temperature Data Erroneous and Incomplete, Says Researcher

Climate-data researcher Dr. John McLean performed what is believed to be the first-ever audit of the primary global temperature dataset used by the IPCC, known as HadCRUT4. Yes, you read that correctly: In all the years climate alarmists have been relying on HadCRUT4, no one ever bothered to examine the data to determine whether it was accurate and reliable. According to McLean, “It is neither of those things.”

Despite the fervent wishes of global-warming believers, McLean cannot be dismissed as a mere “climate denier.” “In March 2016,” noted Breitbart’s James Delingpole, “he advised [the Hadley Center, source of the HadCRUT4 data, and the U.K. weather bureau] of certain errors which they promptly corrected. So he’s an authority they take seriously.” But will they take him seriously enough to reexamine all their data and dial back their alarmist forecasts?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...data-erroneous-and-incomplete-says-researcher

 
I am fascinated by the conversation above. But more, I am intrigued by the fact we have bunch of 'deniers' who are not your standard pro-coal types. Usually you can break the pro and anti into pretty much 'progressive' and 'conversation' - pro science and anti-science. But not here.

So we have those who insist that 'climate change' [global warming] is a fake. Others say it is real but humans have nothing to do with it and we don't need to change what we are doing. Still others say it is real and humans are the cause [this is the strongly pushed line on the 'progressive' side of politics]. There is yet another group that says it is real, but humans haven't cause it, and we still have it stop spewing out toxic crap.

These distinction are important in terms of interpreting the arguments above. Some of us have been around long enough to know that the climate is changing and things are getting warmer from our own direct experience. We don't need a bunch of lab coats to convince us. But have we 'caused' it? That isn't easy to prove, or disprove. That's just science behaving naturally. But add in the politics and the morality and you create a muddy puddle of conflicting interest. I think controlling and reducing our toxic emission is a good thing to do. So it could be argued that saying we are causing climate change is not a bad thing if not true because it can lead to good behaviour - and if it take the fear of climate change to shift attitudes that can only be a good thing - plus keep research $s flowing and hence jobs.

I ge thee moral message and I get that announcing public policy is sometimes predicated on lie because the truth is too complex. Let's be honest here - most folk are clueless when it comes to assessing data of any degree of complexity. So governments lie routinely to persuade us to accept what is for our good [according to them]. Lies and misrepresentation are commonplace. Its what governments do, and have always done [I have 45 years experience in 4 Federal and 4 State departments].

The Climate Change debate isn't about whether [not weather] things are getting hotter in a lot of spots [they are]. Its about whether we are the cause.If we are we have to stop doing what we are doing. That makes sense. But maybe we are only a contributor - in which case we still aught to stop. But maybe nothing we have done or will do will make any difference - so why not keep on doing what we are doing [coal industry argument].

This is idiot level argument for consumption in the popular media. We are doing far worse to our environment than merely fouling the air with excess carbon.If we allow the 'carbon debate' to become the focus of our attention then we will playing into the hands of those who do not give a shit. Their passion is profit and the good times that brings them.

We are wrecking havoc through blundering stupidity and the willingness to imagine the odd small offence has no meaning. The trouble is there are millions of these small offences and one day they will bring the dynamic system that sustains us to its knees. Our own bubble of conceit about our power and consequence is collapsing in on us and we do not notice it. We do not see that we are the famous frog in the slowly heating water. Self interest is self defeating. Shared interest is what we need to work toward.

If we are adding to the pace of global warming it is only one [and probably less important] element of risk we should be confronted with today. We are releasing multiple industrial toxins into our environment. We are wrecking ecosystems [with all the catastrophic impacts that has]. The collective impact of our culture on our World is malign at best and catastrophic at worst.

That's what we must change - and we can't do that if this idiotic argument about Global Warming is sucking all the oxygen out of reasoned public discourse and debate.
 
Back
Top